NIV vs. ESV, Part 2

[McCree79]

Pastor today said it literally means "anchor".

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

He would be wrong. From Mounce Lexicon. [4694] προσορμίζω prosormizō 1x to bring a ship to its station or to land; mid. to come to the land,

That is to moor, not to necessary to anchor.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

He would be wrong. From Mounce Lexicon. [4694] προσορμίζω prosormizō 1x to bring a ship to its station or to land; mid. to come to the land,

That is to moor, not to necessary to anchor.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Well, it was a guest speaker.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[McCree79]

Well, it was a guest speaker.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

hahaha....that is funny. You made me laugh brother.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

Lesson from the scripture this week was the story of Ehud, the guy that assassinated the king of Moab and how God can use the most unlikely of people and their abilities to carry out his will. Anyway, Ehud used a sword to stab the king of Moab (who was a very fat man) in the stomach.

21 And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly.
22 And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out. [ESV]

21 Ehud reached with his left hand, drew the sword from his right thigh and plunged it into the king’s belly.
22 Even the handle sank in after the blade, and his bowels discharged. Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it. [NIV]

His dung (?!) came out? Dung?
I think the NIV use of bowels is much better. For comparison's sake:

"his entrails" NKJV
"insides" HCSB
"the refuse" NASB
"the dirt" KJV

 

[Yeshua1]

Indeed.

Indeed again. D.A. Carson has said that "The aural (heard) form of language has priority over the written form."



Certainly, in case after case the NIV uses more natural language without sacrificing fidelity to the source languages.

I'll give the NRSV rendering:
"The people of long ago are not remembered, nor will there be any remembrance of people yet to come by those who come after them."

It's still not as clear as the NIV, but still represents an improvement over that of the ESV.

Well, I wouldn't say that. The ESV is based on the 1971 edition of the RSV. Therefore, most of its renderings stick with the RSV reading. There has been a slow, incremental revision --almost microscopic to the naked eye. Ever so gradually the ESV is improving. It's a shame that the ESV didn't get permission to revise the NRSV instead of the RSV. The first edition of the ESV was released about a dozen years after the NRSV but sounds more antiquated for a "modern version."

The ESV needs a full-fledged overhaul. The translators need to devote an intense block of time for a much called for true revision. The trouble is : a real revision --not a light dusting --will result in a product that will look remarkably like the 2011 NIV! And they can't have that. So the ESV folks are between a rock and a hard place.

Actually, we need to just continue to use the better translations such as the Nasb/Nkjv...

 

[InTheLight]

Judges 6. The story of Gideon meeting an angel. Unleavened cakes? Or unleavened bread?

21 Then the angel of the Lord reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes. And fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes. [ESV]

21 Then the angel of the Lord touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. [NIV]

21 Then the Angel of the Lord put out the end of the staff that was in His hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire rose out of the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. [NKJV]

21 Then the angel of the Lord put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. [NASB]

21 The Angel of the Lord extended the tip of the staff that was in His hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread. Fire came up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. [HCSB]

I also like the NIV's description of the fire. It "flared from the rock". Compare to the other versions "sprang up", "rose out", "came up".

 

[alexander284]

I find this topic extremely interesting! This process of comparison is fascinating! Thank you.

 

[Yeshua1]

This post has absolutely nothing to say concerning the two translation versions identified in the OP. Negative comments toward certain versions has been deemed "hate speech."

But, lets pause in our efforts to demonstrate one translation is superior to another, and simply consider the meaning of Ecc. 1:8.

My method would be to start with the NASB95 version to begin the process of study:

All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor is the ear filled with hearing.

The meaning of the Hebrew word translated "all things" refers to words, utterances, activities, i.e the actions of mankind to communicate with others. "Dabar" in the form of a noun.

The Hebrew word translated are wearisome, is an adjective describing an exhausting effort. Thus the effort to communicate with mankind is exhausting.

Well why is that? Those being communicated with are not satisfied with seeing words, or hearing words.

And what is the context? Futility.

Both 1984 Niv and Esv are good translations, nboth superior to 2011 Niv!

 

[Van]

Both 1984 Niv and Esv are good translations, nboth superior to 2011 Niv!

Many years ago I had a conversion with my 5 year old grandson. His mind had not quite jelled yet. He thought if he said something was so, that made it so.

If the standard for a "good" translation is that they make money for the publisher, all three of the mentioned functional non-equivalent versions are "good." If the standard for a "good" translation is one that uses the grammatical-historical word and phrase meaning for word and phrase meaning in the target language, then not so much.

 

[InTheLight]

If the standard for a "good" translation is that they make money for the publisher, all three of the mentioned functional non-equivalent versions are "good."

Making money is not the standard of a good translation.

If the standard for a "good" translation is one that uses the grammatical-historical word and phrase meaning for word and phrase meaning in the target language, then not so much.

What?

 

[InTheLight]

I find this topic extremely interesting! This process of comparison is fascinating! Thank you.

It's been an education for me. I would never have thought the NIV would be my translation of choice, but after seeing it side-by-side with the ESV for several years now, it's the winner in that battle. I rarely read the ESV unless it is read in church but I assume a daily reading next to the NIV would find daily examples. Even with my limited exposure to the ESV there have been many, many more examples I could have posted but didn't because I forgot about this thread.

When I look up a verse I check it in this order: NIV and NKJV, then possibly the KJV, then ESV. I throw the ESV in there just to see if there are any more examples of clunky translations with low expectations I'm going to gain any insight in the text. Sad, but true.

 

[Van]

Making money is not the standard of a good translation.

Just because it is not your standard or my standard, it very well might be the standard of publishers.

What?

If the standard for a "good" translation is one that uses:

1) the grammatical-historical word and phrase meaning - each word or phrase has one or more historical meanings, and a translation that does not go outside that range and redefine the word is fine. Ditto for grammar, if the source language was a verb, then the target language choice would therefore be a verb.


2) word and phrase meaning in the target language - for each meaning on the source language, the translation should provide a unique target language word or phrase to convey that particular meaning whether literal or idiomatic.

 

[Van]

It's been an education for me. I would never have thought the NIV would be my translation of choice, but after seeing it side-by-side with the ESV for several years now, it's the winner in that battle. I rarely read the ESV unless it is read in church but I assume a daily reading next to the NIV would find daily examples. Even with my limited exposure to the ESV there have been many, many more examples I could have posted but didn't because I forgot about this thread.

When I look up a verse I check it in this order: NIV and NKJV, then possibly the KJV, then ESV. I throw the ESV in there just to see if there are any more examples of clunky translations with low expectations I'm going to gain any insight in the text. Sad, but true.

As has been said many times before, the more you use the ESV, the more you grow to dislike it.

 

[Rob_BW]

It's been an education for me. I would never have thought the NIV would be my translation of choice, but after seeing it side-by-side with the ESV for several years now, it's the winner in that battle. I rarely read the ESV unless it is read in church but I assume a daily reading next to the NIV would find daily examples. Even with my limited exposure to the ESV there have been many, many more examples I could have posted but didn't because I forgot about this thread.

When I look up a verse I check it in this order: NIV and NKJV, then possibly the KJV, then ESV. I throw the ESV in there just to see if there are any more examples of clunky translations with low expectations I'm going to gain any insight in the text. Sad, but true.

Funny this thread came back to life. I'm reading through the ESV now, and just hit Judges where the "dung" came out.

 

[InTheLight]

Funny this thread came back to life. I'm reading through the ESV now, and just hit Judges where the "dung" came out.

Synchronicity strikes again!

This sort of stuff happens to me a couple times a week.

 

[alexander284]

Synchronicity strikes again!

This sort of stuff happens to me a couple times a week.

Things happen for a reason, right?

 

[alexander284]

And I'm still harboring mixed feelings about the ESV. Lol

 

[Revmitchell]

I wouldnt use the NIV to lean the mud off my boot

 

[alexander284]

I wouldnt use the NIV to lean the mud off my boot

I'm curious: which Bible translation(s) would you recommend?

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm curious: which Bible translation(s) would you recommend?

Nas/Nkjv/Kjv/Esv/1984 Niv